Teaparty History

Or,

“We Always Meant to Govern Ourselves”

James Duvall, M. A.

Big Bone University

In December 1773 John Adams was living in Boston. Though he hated mob action of any kind, he was, according to historian David McCullough, “exuberant over the event.” (1) Why did the future president believe that Americans had every right to determine their own destiny, even in the face of warnings of those who, like his friend Jonathan Sewall, believed that Britain was irresistible, and would destroy all who stood in the way? Before he sailed back to London, Attorney General Sewall wrote: “I have faith . . . that rebellion will shrink back to its native hell, and that Great Britain will rise superior to all the gasconades of the little, wicked American politicians.” (2)

I wonder what he would say about the ones we have today?

Soon after Sewall sailed away, never to return, John Adams was writing a series of letters to the Boston Globe, under an assumed name, which argued that if America did not take action at once, the country would end up like the Irish, living on potatoes and water! (3)

The Teaparty took the High Ground

One cold winter night in Boston, 5 March 1770, six people were killed by British soldiers, the famous Boston Massacre. “The Fruits of Arbitrary Power”, Paul Revere called the engraving he published of the affair. After this, the patriots gained so much moral support that the “irresistible” British government was obliged to retreat, and literally withdraw its troops from the town.

The leaders of the Revolution took the high moral ground, and ensured that the soldiers involved in the massacre got fair trials; and Paul Revere himself helped supply evidence to assist them at their trials. Historian David H. Fischer points out that Revere and his fellow revolutionists did not hesitate to use violence, but they did so in a very careful way! They used every opportunity to enlist the support and sympathy of their fellow citizens, which would not have been possible were they responsible for lawlessness and gratuitous violence.

When the army was withdrawn from Boston, and the various odious taxes were repealed, a tax — a mere symbol of Britain's right to tax — was placed on tea. It was so small a tax the government, and everyone else, thought that even unruly Boston would accept it.

“It was a fatal miscalculation,” remarks Fischer. Instead there was an explosion of anger throughout the colonies. Other towns reacted earlier, and more violently, but none with such flair, or with such confident campaign strategy as Boston. Fischer calls it “a brilliant piece of political theater.” (4) It was done, as you know, by “Indians” — then as now, a potent symbol of American freedom — and they were organized in a highly sophisticated way: Like a Teaparty! In fact, they were the first organizers of the Teaparty!

The men involved were formed into groups, and only their section commanders knew their names. This is the classic example of cellular organization, and it would be used many times to good effect throughout the Revolution. They threw the tea into Boston harbor; but, to demonstrate they were not opposed to law and order, they replaced the lock which had to be broken to remove the tea. A man who stole a small amount of tea for his own use was made to run the gauntlet, and his coat nailed to the whipping post. The British leaders paid no attention to these small, but significant, symbolic acts, and they branded the Teaparty a subversive organization!

A Grass-roots Organization

What is the lesson for us? I think Dr. Fischer's summary has some useful observations:

“There were no controlling figures in Boston's revolutionary movement, which was an open alliance of many different groups. Here was the source of Paul Revere's importance. He knew everyone and moved in many different circles. In Boston this great joiner helped to link one group to another, and was supremely good at getting things done . . . . The revolutionary movement in Boston was not small, tightly controlled, and hierarchical. It was large, open, diverse, complex and pluralistic, a world of many circles.” (5)

It was, we should say, an American movement, organized in a typical American way, that is, as a movement, not an organization.

We had Always Governed ourselves, and Always Meant to

When Mellen Chamberlain, who died in 1900, was a young whipper snapper of 21 back in 1843, when he undertook to interview old Captain Levi Preston, a Revolutionary veteran, then 91 years of age. Chamberlain later became a judge, and was considered an antiquarian of good veracity, and he knew what kind of answers he wanted from the old man:

“Captain Preston, what made you go to the Concord fight?”

“What did I go for?”

“. . . Were you oppressed by the Stamp Act?”

But the old man didn't fall for it:

“I never say any stamps, and I always understood that none were ever sold.”

“Well, what about the tea tax?”

“Tea tax? I never drank a drop of the stuff, the boys threw it all overboard.”

“But I suppose you had been reading Harrington, Sidney, and Locke about the eternal principle of liberty?”

“I never heard of these men. The only books we had were the Bible, the catechism, Watt's psalms and hymns, and the almanacs.”

“Well, then, what was the problem?”

“Young man, what we meant in going for those Redcoats was this: We always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They didn't mean that we should.” (6)

James Duvall, M. A.

Big Bone University: A Think Tank, Research Institute, & Public Policy Center

Big Bone, Kentucky

Nec ossa solum, sed etiam sanguinem.

Read to the Grass-roots Teaparty of Boone County 3 Jan 2011; Typed and slightly revised 6 Jan 2011.

David McCullough. John Adams. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001.

David H. Fischer. Paul Revere's Ride. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Footnotes

(1) McCullough, p. 70.

(2) Ibid., 71-72.

(3) Ibid.

(4) Fischer, p. 25.

(5) Ibid., 27.

(6) Ibid., 163-164.

Additional Note

The modern Teaparty does not approve the use of any violence. In our case violence is unnecessary — the enemy is us, or at least people who claim to speak for us! For example, one of our local officials argues that we must take Federal money for projects so “we can get our (read “your”) tax money back!” Tax on tea? Such people would gladly pay a tax on Gunpowder! Let's stand up to our “irresistible” Government, and refuse to beg for, and be bought off with, our own tax dollars!